Stem cell board gives grants to its own members

UCSD says it's not a conflict for its medical school dean

The University of California San Diego has received $132 million from the state’s stem cell agency — but the agency says that has nothing to do with UC San Diego’s medical school dean sitting on the agency’s board.

UC San Diego’s Dr. David Brenner serves on the board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

He sits out votes affecting his university’s grants, as do his colleagues when their institution is up for funding.

“It’s not just that Dr. Brenner represents UC San Diego, there is a representative for each institute, because those are the people who know about stem cell research,” said UC San Diego School of Medicine spokeswoman Debra Kain. “Does he personally benefit? No, because his lab has not applied for any funding.”

UC San Diego grant totals were contained in a report this month in the Orange County Register, which reviewed the funding statewide. The story referenced a California Stem Cell Report analysis, which found 90 percent of the agency’s $1.7 billion in research funding has gone to institutions with ties to the agency’s board members.

Spokesman Kevin McCormack for the stem cell agency said it is working to address any potential conflicts of interest. He notes that the researchers getting grants from his agency are also the ones getting federal grants.

The stem cell agency was created after passage of Proposition 71 in 2004. The initiative authorized the state to borrow $3 billion to fund stem cell research. Long term, the financing is expected to cost about $6 billion.

The initiative also established the 29-member governing board, which also includes patient advocates, university chancellors and representatives from other research institutions.

Grant applications are initially handled by a committee that includes several experts from outside the state — to provide independence. The committee’s decisions can be appealed to the larger governing board.

The most recent review of grants, which the agency requested of itself, pointed out that the governing board has approved 32 percent of committee decisions that have been appealed. It suggested the agency change the structure and makeup of its board and committees.

Princeton professor Harold Shapiro, who chairs the Institute of Medicine panel responsible for the report, told the Register that the agency has clear conflicts of interest.

“The kind of conflicts that exist now are very direct and very major,” Shapiro said.

Other reviews of the agency have also found the agency’s governance structure presents conflicts of interest that may be undermining the interest of California taxpayers and reducing their confidence in the agency. The agency has not adopted all recommendations.

McCormack said the agency takes the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine report very seriously, and is working through the challenges needed to adopt them.

“Part of the problem is Proposition 71, the way it is written, lays out the structure of the board and the composition,” McCormack said. “We are doing an analysis to find out what is involved. It will either be another voters initiative to the ballot or going to the Legislature.”